David Locke & Carmel Shachar consider the impact of globalised medicine on withdrawal of treatment decisions in the UK
- Is it a reality that developed jurisdictions (other than the UK) permit treatment contrary to the best interests of children simply because either it is the wish of the parents, or because they can pay for it? Or is the real divergence in the applied definition of ‘best interests’?
- Since it can reasonably be anticipated that these are arguments which will be raised in front of the courts again, it is important that proper scrutiny is given to the assertions.
As a feature of the progressive globalisation of medicine, the recent, heavily litigated, trio of cases involving the withdrawal of treatment from infants (Charlie Gard, Isaiah Haastrup and Alfie Evans) has highlighted what is asserted to be an international cultural, medical and medico-legal divergence in relation to the issues of futility, ‘best interests’ and the parental role in decisions to withdraw treatment from children.
The first instance decision in the Charlie Gard case, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v Yates
